Massachusetts is considered one of the most liberal states in the country. It has already adopted a private insurance-based, near-universal health insurance system under Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Given that, it should come as no surprise that, in a large swath of the state, voters signaled their willingness to adopt a universal single-payer health care system, similar to “Medicare for all.”

Massachusetts allows for citizens to place non-binding, local “public policy questions” on the ballot. In precincts containing around 10 percent of the state’s population, the Massachusetts Campaign for Health Care Justice put on the ballot a question asking voters whether or not to instruct their local representative to “support legislation establishing health care as a human right regardless of age, state of health, or employment status, by creating a single-payer health insurance system like Medicare that is comprehensive, cost effective, and publicly provided to all residents of Massachusetts?” As of today, in the precincts reporting 62 percent voted yes.

How would this 62 percent support in these local precincts translate to the level of support statewide?

As done previously for the marijuana legalization public policy question, I did, where possible, a town-by-town analysis comparing the results for the single-payer question to the results of the 2010 governor’s race and the 2008 presidential contest. (Note: precincts not fully reported, and a few towns that are split between two state House districts, had to be dropped from the analysis.)

In the towns compared, the voters were only very slightly more liberal-leaning than the entire state. This year, in the towns examined, the liberal-leaning gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Deval Patrick and Green Jill Stein, combined for a total that was roughly only three percentage points higher than their share of the vote statewide. Compared to the 2008 presidential election, the towns examined only supported Barack Obama and the liberal third-party candidates by roughly two percentage points compared to voters statewide.

A projected 59 percent support for single payer

By comparing the samples, I conclude that the towns I examined in my analysis are fairly representative, and if the single-payer question had appeared on the ballot across the whole state this year, it would have received a Yes vote of roughly 59 percent, just slightly less than it did in the local precincts.

That is a strong majority for a state single payer system, especially given that this midterm election saw a big Republican wave with unusually high conservative turnout.

I did the same analysis based on the results of a near-identical single-payer public policy question placed on the ballot in several districts in 2008. While the districts where it was on the ballot were significantly more liberal than the state as a whole, my analysis leads me to believe that roughly 69 percent of the 2008 electorate supported single payer. 2008, of course, was a Democratic wave year, and showed unusually high liberal and youth turnout.

This swing on a liberal issue is similar to the generic ballot swing from Democrat to Republican that we saw in the last two elections. I suspect in a more normal election, with a more normal turnout, demographic support would fall somewhere in between.

I would hope to see that if there were broad support among the electorate for single payer, the Democrat-dominated Massachusetts state government would choose to implement this better policy. Unfortunately, as we have seen at the national level, the health care industry has a powerful ability to crush smart reform. If the elected officials refuse to act, single-payer activists should keep in mind that there is at least potential majority support for taking the issue directly to the voters through the initiative process. Something the state of Massachusetts allows.

Some Caveats – Most of the caveats of my marijuana legalization analysis also apply. There is a fair amount of vote drop-off down the ballot. For example, it is likely supporters of single payer were slightly more likely to indicate their support for this non-binding question, while those mildly opposed chose to just skip it.

Most importantly with an issue like this: details are critical. Many of those who in general support single payer might oppose a specific proposal based on how it is paid for and how it affects their current insurance. If single payer activists do try to advance the issue through a binding initiative, getting the details right politically and policy-wise could prove a very complicated task.

Obama didn’t create the disaster that is “health care” in this country. He merely enshrined the power that the insurance companies already had with the Health Insurance Company and Pharmaceutical Welfare and Giveaway Act. Middle class people were already being squeezed before the legislation and indigent people have never had access to quality health care in this country. Got diabetes but no insurance? Wait till your foot turns black and then go to the ER and they’ll amputate it for you and then send you a bill you’ll never be able to pay. Obama’s health insurance “reform” is abominable but it isn’t the author of that kind of thing.

Shumlin ran on this hard, and it is very popular with the state. In the healthcare debate, people tended to look at Massachusetts and forget that Vermont already has low income health insurance in place as well as state run healthcare. I am on VHAP, which pays for most things, and there are a lot of people who are on Catamount. Over all, the state has had very few problems with the system, and Shumlin wants to expand it in order to make it stronger and cover everyone in the state. At the same time, this would reign in costs and provide a boon to the employers in the state who want to unburden themselves of the costs of buying health insurance.

I have little doubt the state leg could have passed state single payer instead of Romney Care in the first place. One thing this really points out is that the type of health insurance reform passed nationally does nothing to satisfy the desire among many voters(a majority in MA, clearly) to pass real health care reform. The issue is getting the leg to actually put the ballot question up for a binding vote. We got marijuana decriminalization on the ballot following support for the non-binding ballot question. However, the state leg, the dolts, didn’t really think it would pass. The groups against it never really got in to gear. It was brilliant. The forces against single payer in this state will fight tooth and nail to let this go to a ballot question, but when it does, I think it will pass, and I predict MA will be the first single payer state despite the VT election.

“Got diabetes but no insurance? Wait till your foot turns black and then go to the ER and they’ll amputate it for you and then send you a bill you’ll never be able to pay.”

which is basically how it will continue to work under the Obaminsurance scam, except that a few million people who may have had a few dollars to buy the medications they came back from the ER with scripts for, will now have to surrender that money to private for profit insurance companies or the IRS.

HCR is nothing more than servitude to for profit, tax exempt and antitrust exempt state based health insurance corporations. Segregation was state based also. A single payer system funded with the proceeds from the .80 cents of every American dollar Americans wasted on gasoline is a great idea. Increased efficiency, increased value for the American consumer is an illusion, when politician protect modern day slave-owners, then use the tax code as a gauntlet on the citizen while the corporations continue to profit! Abolish health insurance as slavery was abolished. Single payer system, funded with the money Americans waste on energy every fucking day of their lives, sitting in traffic going nowhere fast, is a viable option. One problem, oilmen and auto makers?

Look at the amount of money we spend everyday on fucking gasoline, as a nation. Then realize 80% of that money spent is wasted, right out your tailpipe. If natural selection applied to the the internal combustion engine, as applied to life, the ICE would be extinct. Life’s battle has always been with energy and America is brainwashed into servitude!

“…will now have to surrender that money to private for profit insurance companies or the IRS.” BCBS tax exmept! Kaiser Tax exmept! Ask people a question, “do you know the tax status of your health insurance corporation?” They will look at you as if you have three heads? Ignorant of facts!!!

Fuck the DOR and IRS. Just like fugitive slave laws, and we are the slaves! Fuck em!

I don’t doubt that your conclusion is in the ball park because it intuitively makes sense to me; however, I question the validity of your methodology. I’m not a statistician, so I could be mistaken, but aren’t you mixing some apples and oranges here?

I do admire your work, btw, so please feel free to explain why I’m wrong. An early morning stroll through the statistical thicket would be an interesting adventure, methinks.

I assume that supporter for a liberal cause like single payer is highly correlated with support for Democrats. Given that these towns I looked at are on average are barely more Democrat leaning then the rest of the state I suspect the same would be support for a liberal cause like single payer. I could be wrong. There could be an important factor at pay like the lack of a major hospital in these districts but it seem unlikely. I think it is a pretty good ballpark figure but not set in stone, Of course even good polling has a margin of error.

When you get right down to it, no credible evidence based argument supports the continued existence of health insurance companies because they are parasites charging substantial sums of money without providing a necessary or useful service in return. Instead, they practice medicine without a license, fuck up the works, and kill people.